Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory kan lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2012

    have started closed cover, for the moment mainly in order to record references.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2012
    • (edited Apr 30th 2012)

    In respect of the other thread regarding compact objects in Sh(Mfld)Sh(Mfld), might it be worth recording the simple result that open covers of compact, not necessarily boundaryless, manifolds are refined by (finite) closed covers such that pairwise intersections have non-empty interior? I can do it myself, in a little while, if so.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2012
    • (edited Apr 30th 2012)

    Hi David,

    I assume you mean this here as a rethorical question:

    might it be worth recording the simple result that […]

    ?

    If not, then I don’t understand. What are you worried about?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2012

    Hmm, not sure. I asked on a whim.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2012

    It is a big problem in the noncommutative geometry a la Connes how to replace the condition that every point is in the interior of some element of the cover. Namely if one deals with such open covers than the usual conditions like local triviality etc. are well represented so this condition is essential (otherwise one can get lower-dimensional members of the cover and then the local triviality becomes much weaker condition and similarly for Čech cocycles). Namely in operator algebras closed sets are easy to achieve – just divide by corresponding ideals. My proposal is to work with open covers represented by pro-C-star-algebras which come as inverse limits of such closed sets, like one is exhausting an open set by increasing family of closed sets (direct limits of sets becomes an inverse limit of algebras!). But the problem with interior still stays in that approach. On the algebraic side one has at least echo of Zariski topology via flat localization theory, what is where I made (in Hopf-coaction setup) much of my career on, but it is difficult to find analogues on the operator algebra side. Woronowicz suggested to me using affiliated elements of C-star-algebra or multiplier algebra instead of pro-C-star algebra as in the Zariski examples one has unboundedness effects when going to the singularities of inverted set of observables.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2012

    @Zoran, I know it is off topic, but I presume you have seen the paper by Snigdhayan Mahanta http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5400 (he’s a postdoc at Adelaide).

    My proposal is to work with open covers represented by pro-C-star-algebras which come as inverse limits of such closed sets, like one is exhausting an open set by increasing family of closed sets

    Does it work the other way around? Can you consider limits of open sets as they shrink down to a closed set? This is a fruitful way of thinking about paths in topological stacks. Naively they are represented by anafunctors which rely on open covers of [0,1][0,1] for their definition, but one can really just take a closed cover as we are considering here; if one doesn’t care about smoothness, it is permissible to ’pass to the limit’ and allow overlaps to be lower-dimensional. But in general, one can take a system of shrinking open covers.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 1st 2012

    David: Surely it works other way around but the conditions on interior are likely to be easier to describe in the situation I describe: every point is in some closed set of the sequence/net, and if it is in some it is in every later/bigger one. When one goes down one can shrink size in the limit, what seems a bit more difficult to control. I know Mahanta from Max Planck days (and some correspondence earlier than that) and I knew some of his papers. It seems I missed this one, thank you.

    Tim Porter: this Mahanta’s paper speculates at some point a possibility for noncommutative proper homotopy theory from an extension of his setup.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2012

    Hmm, not sure. I asked on a whim.

    In any case, I have now added a remark to that effect.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2012

    I corrected Jankovič to Janković (these are different phonems).

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012

    @Zoran. Thanks. That looks very interesting as a paper and an idea. I will have to look into it in more detail and see if it is worth adding some stuff to the lab about it.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)